Double Standard in Arpaio Case Highlighted by Treatment of Hillary and Holder
Of all the various developments and allegations swirling around in the Feds’ ongoing maneuverings against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, one stands out as a stark example of different treatment: Things aren’t moving along quickly enough for a federal judge who just recused himself from deciding if criminal contempt charges should be filed.
[U.S. District Judge Murray] Snow imposed a series of changes aimed at guarding against profiling, but he has complained that Arpaio has been slow to make the changes.
Compare that with how the investigation into Hillary Clinton continues to be stonewalled:
Seven months after a federal judge ordered the State Department to begin releasing monthly batches of the detailed daily schedules showing meetings by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, the government told The Associated Press it won’t finish the job before Election Day. The department has so far released about half of the schedules. Its lawyers said in a phone conference with the AP’s lawyers that the department now expects to release the last of the detailed schedules around Dec. 30, weeks before the next president is inaugurated.
Now look at the former head of Justice, Eric Holder, cited for contempt of Congress for stonewalling on documents related to Fast and Furious “gunwalking,” a criminal government enterprise that has resulted (and continues to result) in untold deaths. That’s been going on for years. (Phoenix, of course, was where Fast and Furious was (locally) directed, and where the former U.S. attorney had to resign in disgrace.)
It’s the feds that have established conditions where illegal foreign nationals are flooding the country. A commensurate rise in criminal activity is not only predictable, it’s inevitable. It also makes sense that encounters would be higher in Border States through which those making their way to the interior must first pass, and with established populations where many settle. Is a high encounter rate “profiling” or simply a reflection of higher odds? And is the alternative to turn a blind eye when a politically impassable threshold has been reached?
Is it any surprise that someone who has used his office to make up for deliberate federal dereliction of duty has become a target of those with a documented penchant for retaliation?
So does this mean Sheriff Joe should be given a pass? Of course not – serious allegations have been made and those require investigating. With a presumption of innocence. the burden of proof on the prosecutors and a fully informed jury if it comes to that, to ensure the charges aren’t purely political and vindictive.
The point here is Hillary and Holder need to be held to the same expectations of timely compliance. And the same standards of scrutiny.